【摘要】：自1976年韓禮德和哈桑發(fā)表《英語的銜接》一書以來,銜接手段對于實(shí)現(xiàn)語篇連貫的重要性便受到了廣泛的關(guān)注和研究,照應(yīng)作為一項(xiàng)重要的銜接手段也受到長期的重視。然而,縱觀以往的相關(guān)研究,很少有研究從二語教學(xué)和習(xí)得的角度比較英語本族語者和非本族語者對于照應(yīng)銜接手段的使用,且將英語本族語者和非本族語者碩士論文英文摘要作為語料比較照應(yīng)銜接手段使用的研究更加少見,這些都表明了本論文的必要性。本文以中英學(xué)生碩士論文中的英文摘要為語料,中國學(xué)生所寫的100篇英文摘要來自CNKI,英國學(xué)生所寫的100篇英文摘要來自PQDT。本文采取定性與定量相結(jié)合的辦法,旨在回答三個(gè)研究問題:(1)中英學(xué)生在碩士論文英文摘要的寫作中對于照應(yīng)銜接手段的使用存在哪些相似點(diǎn)和不同點(diǎn)?(2)中國學(xué)生在英文摘要的寫作中存在哪些照應(yīng)銜接手段的誤用?(3)產(chǎn)生這些相似點(diǎn)和不同點(diǎn)以及誤用情況的可能因素有哪些?本論文的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)如下:(1)在對三種照應(yīng)銜接手段的使用上均發(fā)現(xiàn)了相同點(diǎn)和不同點(diǎn)。兩組學(xué)生使用這些銜接手段的總體趨勢相近,中國學(xué)生使用人稱照應(yīng)、指示照應(yīng)、比較照應(yīng)的頻率為(12.2%,80.7%,6.9%),英國學(xué)生使用這些銜接手段的頻率為(16%,75.6%,8%),兩組學(xué)生均使用指示照應(yīng)最頻繁,比較照應(yīng)最不頻繁。在對人稱照應(yīng)的使用上,兩組學(xué)生對第二人稱照應(yīng)(0%,0.7%),某些第三人稱照應(yīng)(39.78%,40.4%)以及“one”/“one’s”(12.1%,10.9%)的使用相類似,而對單數(shù)第一人稱照應(yīng)(0.29%,23.3%)和“it”/“its”(41.5%,17.2%)的使用則區(qū)別很大。在對指示照應(yīng)的使用上,他們對“this”,“those”,“now”和“here”,“there”和“then”(8.22%,10.94%)的使用存在相似點(diǎn),但對于“these”(1.14%,4.3%),“that”(6.46%,13.8%)和“the”(84.18%,70.94%)的使用則有所不同。在對比較照應(yīng)的使用上,兩組學(xué)生均未使用如“identical”,“identically”,“equal”,“equally”,“else”,“l(fā)ikewise”,“additional”等比較照應(yīng),對于“other”(9.09%,12.02%),“otherwise”(0%,0.48%)和比較級(jí)(36.36%,38.94%)的使用頗為相似。然而,英國學(xué)生對于其它比較照應(yīng)如“same”,“similar”和“similarly”,“different”和“differently”的使用均比中國學(xué)生頻繁地多。(2)中國學(xué)生對人稱照應(yīng)、指示照應(yīng)、比較照應(yīng)的誤用率分別為35.16%,19.62%和8.08%,最常被誤用的是人稱照應(yīng),最少被誤用的是比較照應(yīng)。在人稱照應(yīng)上,中國學(xué)生誤用第三人稱照應(yīng)(41%),第一人稱照應(yīng)(20%),“one”/“one’s”(2%)。在指示照應(yīng)上,中國學(xué)生誤用“the”(20.51%),“this”/“these”(20%),“that”/“those”(12.26%)。在比較照應(yīng)上,中國學(xué)生誤用比較級(jí)(13.89%),“so”(12.12%),“other”(11.11%)。(3)兩組學(xué)生在照應(yīng)銜接手段的使用上存在一些相似點(diǎn),如鮮少使用第二人稱照應(yīng),大量使用第三人稱照應(yīng)以及對于“the”的頻繁使用,引起這些相似點(diǎn)的因素也許可以歸結(jié)為對于英語學(xué)術(shù)文章寫作的相似要求;而兩組學(xué)生不同的文化背景或許可以視作其對于第一人稱照應(yīng)尤其是第一人稱單數(shù)照應(yīng)使用上存在不同的一個(gè)原因,不同的語言環(huán)境和語言能力也許是作為英語本族語者的英國學(xué)生對比較照應(yīng)的使用比中國學(xué)生更具多樣性的可能因素;至于中國學(xué)生對于照應(yīng)銜接手段的誤用,語內(nèi)遷移和語際遷移或可視作主要的影響因素。通過分析中英學(xué)生對照應(yīng)銜接手段的使用存在的相似點(diǎn)和不同點(diǎn)以及中國學(xué)生對其的誤用情況,本論文指出了這些相似點(diǎn)、不同點(diǎn)以及兩組學(xué)生在照應(yīng)銜接手段使用上的差距,希望本論文的研究成果可以為二語教學(xué)和習(xí)得提供一些啟示。盡管有了這些發(fā)現(xiàn),本研究仍存在一些不可避免的局限性,包括語料的范疇,收集語料的過程,以及分析可能因素的過程,這些都將在未來的研究中一一克服。
[Abstract]:Since Halliday and Hasan published the book Cohesion in English in 1976, the importance of cohesive devices in achieving discourse coherence has attracted much attention and research. As an important cohesive device, cohesive devices have also received much attention for a long time. Compared with native English speakers and non-native English speakers, there are less studies on the use of cohesive devices and the use of English abstracts as corpus-based cohesive devices. All these indicate the necessity of this thesis. The 100 English abstracts written by Chinese students are from CNKI and the 100 English abstracts written by British students are from PQDT. This paper adopts a qualitative and quantitative approach to answer three research questions: (1) What similarities and differences exist between Chinese and English students in the use of cohesive devices in the writing of English abstracts of master's theses? Similarities? (2) What are the misuses of cohesive devices in Chinese students'writing of English abstracts? (3) What are the possible factors that lead to these similarities and differences and misuses? (1) Similarities and differences have been found in the use of the three cohesive devices. The general trend of these cohesive devices is similar. Chinese students use personal reference, directive reference, and the frequency of comparative reference is (12.2%, 80.7%, 6.9%). British students use these cohesive devices (16%, 75.6%, 8%). Both groups of students use directive reference the most frequently, and the frequency of comparative reference is the least. The use of second person reference (0%, 0.7%), some third person reference (39.78%, 40.4%) and "one" / "one's" (12.1%, 10.9%) were similar, while the use of singular first person reference (0.29%, 23.3%) and "it" / "it s" (41.5%, 17.2%) were quite different. There were similarities in the use of ow, here, there and then (8.22%, 10.94%) but there were differences in the use of these (1.14%, 4.3%), "that" (6.46%, 13.8%) and "the" (84.18%, 70.94%). However, the use of "other" (9.09%, 12.02%), "otherwise" (0%, 0.48%) and "comparative" (36.36%, 38.94%) is similar to that of "other" (9.09%, 12.02%). (2) Chinese students misused the third person reference (41%) and the first person reference (20%). "/"one's"(2%). Chinese students misused"the"(20.51%),"this"/"these"(20%),"that"/"those"(12.26%). In comparative care, Chinese students misused comparative grades (13.89%),"so"(12.12%) and"other"(11.11%). If the use of the second person reference is rare, the use of the third person reference and the frequent use of the "the" may be attributed to similar requirements for English academic writing, and the different cultural backgrounds of the two groups of students may be regarded as their first person reference, especially the first person reference. One reason for the difference in the use of singular anaphora is that different linguistic environments and abilities may be a possible factor for English learners as native speakers to use comparative anaphora more diversified than Chinese learners; as for the misuse of anaphoric cohesive devices by Chinese learners, intralingual and interlingual transfer may be regarded as By analyzing the similarities and differences between Chinese and English students in the use of cohesive devices and the misuse of cohesive devices by Chinese students, this paper points out these similarities, differences and the gap between the two groups of students in the use of cohesive devices. It is hoped that the research findings of this paper can be used in second language teaching. Despite these findings, there are still some unavoidable limitations in this study, including the scope of the corpus, the process of collecting the corpus, and the process of analyzing possible factors, which will be overcome one by one in future studies.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：東北師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：H315

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 孫莉;;中國碩士學(xué)位論文英文摘要的語用身份建構(gòu)研究[J];外語與外語教學(xué);2015年05期

2 王莉;;英文學(xué)術(shù)論文摘要篇章特征的多維研究[J];外語學(xué)刊;2014年03期

3 楊玉晨;張琳琳;;“問題-解決”式對學(xué)術(shù)論文摘要的篇章構(gòu)建[J];中國外語;2013年05期

4 李月明;;試析非英語專業(yè)本科生英語寫作的銜接[J];江蘇社會(huì)科學(xué);2012年S1期

5 付杰;;語言遷移現(xiàn)象分析及其對英語教學(xué)的啟示[J];長春教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年09期

6 陳海慶;熊文卿;;中國碩士學(xué)位論文英文摘要的名詞化現(xiàn)象調(diào)查研究[J];大連理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年04期

7 曹順娣;;英漢語篇中照應(yīng)手段對比與翻譯[J];海外英語;2010年02期

8 黃艷春;黃振定;;英漢語指稱照應(yīng)對比與翻譯[J];外語教學(xué);2006年01期

9 劉玉梅;學(xué)術(shù)論文英文摘要的文體特征研究[J];四川外語學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年04期

10 戴煒棟,王棟;語言遷移研究:問題與思考[J];外國語(上海外國語大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2002年06期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 孔艷;英語國家留學(xué)生漢語語篇銜接手段使用研究[D];中央民族大學(xué);2009年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 梁瑞霞;英漢文學(xué)論文摘要中銜接機(jī)制的研究[D];東北師范大學(xué);2015年

2 賴婷婷;英語商務(wù)信函的銜接手段研究[D];南京理工大學(xué);2012年

3 謝彩云;英漢照應(yīng)銜接手段差異及其對翻譯的啟示[D];南京航空航天大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號(hào)：2228327